Hi Dan,
The key to understanding what's happening here is to
remember that `component/start` combines both dependency
ordering *and* dependency injection.
Your super system looks like this just after it is
constructed:
{:system {:foo {}, :bar {}},
:system2 {:baz {}, :qux {}}}
When you
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for the thorough response!
On Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 7:00:16 AM UTC-5, Stuart Sierra wrote:
Hi Dan,
The key to understanding what's happening here is to
remember that `component/start` combines both dependency
ordering *and* dependency injection.
Your
Sorry to resurrect an old thread with a somewhat tangential question but...
I'm seeing strange behavior in nesting systems that I am hoping someone can
explain. I have two independent systems as components of a super system,
with an artificial dependency to attempt to enforce ordering of
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 5:47 PM, James Gatannah james.gatan...@gmail.com
wrote:
FWIW, we've been using something that smells an awful lot like nested
systems for months now. I never realized we weren't supposed to.
It's not that nested systems *never* work, but from what I've seen they
cause
I've also been investigating the nested system approach/problem.
The primary use case that I have is composing subsystems which are mostly
independent modules using a higher order system to run in one process. The
modules themselves can be easily extracted into separate applications thus
A possible implementation for the idea expressed in the previous post -
https://github.com/stuartsierra/component/pull/25
On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 2:41:46 PM UTC+1, platon...@gmail.com wrote:
I've also been investigating the nested system approach/problem.
The primary use case that I
On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 10:16:10 AM UTC-5, Stuart Sierra wrote:
On Wednesday, March 11, 2015, Colin Yates wrote:
Nested systems don't really work.
FWIW, we've been using something that smells an awful lot like nested
systems for months now. I never realized we weren't supposed to.
Hi James,
Do you have a code fragment/gist for the glue?
On 17 March 2015 at 17:47, James Gatannah james.gatan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 10:16:10 AM UTC-5, Stuart Sierra wrote:
On Wednesday, March 11, 2015, Colin Yates wrote:
Nested systems don't really work.
Hi Jonah,
This is quite comparable to micro-services - each service is an abstraction
or at least a facade and wants to play in a bigger system, but each
micro-service may itself have its own stateful graph to maintain.
I think I will explore my original direction of having a
merge won't help as there will be name space clashes.
I wonder if a more elegant approach would be to construct the 'inner'
system and then assoc onto it the external dependencies it needs
before calling start.
On 11 March 2015 at 18:49, adrian.med...@mail.yu.edu wrote:
I believe I
I like the idea of passing in the *key* of the external collaborator -
that's nice. Thanks Stuart.
I am surprised there isn't more call for nested systems - maybe there
is and this solution is sufficient-enough...
Again - thanks Stuart!
On 12 March 2015 at 15:16, Stuart Sierra
On Wednesday, March 11, 2015, Colin Yates wrote:
I can't merge the two systems because the reusable
component is chocka full of very fine grained command
handlers and both the internal and external systems will
have their own 'bus' for example. I could namespace the
keys but that again feels
Hey Colin, it sounds like:
* if the 2 systems really can't function without each other, and their
start/stop lifecycles are tightly bound, then somehow they have to be
merged into a single system
or
* if the 2 systems can't be merged into a single system because of true
functional or lifecycle
Hi Adrian - I don't follow how that helps integrate two different
systems - I wonder if my question was unclear or I am missing
something in your answer. Would you mind posting some pseudo code to
clarify please?
On 11 March 2015 at 18:32, adrian.med...@mail.yu.edu wrote:
You can specify
I believe I misunderstood your question; I didn't realize it was system (as
opposed to any general component) specific. I think systems can be merged
together (via 'merge'). Would that help?
On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 2:40:14 PM UTC-4, Colin Yates wrote:
Hi Adrian - I don't follow how
You can specify component dependencies using the 'using' function as you
know. As long as you know the key of the component in the system you can
specify this dependency wherever you construct the component. If you want
to parameterize dependencies, write a constructor function which takes the
16 matches
Mail list logo
